Lewis v. State

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ALFRED MAURICE LEWIS, JR., Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 215, 2012 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID 0812009803 Submitted: July 10, 20121 Decided: July 16, 2012 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 16th day of July 2012, it appears to the Court that: (1) On April 23, 2012, this Court received appellant Alfred Lewis notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, docketed March 13, 2012, denying his motion for postconviction relief. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before April 12, 2012. (2) The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing Lewis to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely 1 The Court held this matter in abeyance pending the outcome of its decision in Smith v. State, 2012 WL 2821889, ___ A.3d ___ (Del. 2012), which was issued on July 10, 2012. filed.2 Appellant filed a response to the notice to show cause on May 3, 2012. He asserts that his appeal should not be deemed late because he mailed it in time but that it was twice returned to him for insufficient postage and possible and insufficient address. Lewis seems to suggest that any delay in the Clerk s receipt of his materials should not be held against him because he tried to file in a timely manner. The State has filed an answer in opposition to appellant s response. (3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3 A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period in order to be effective.4 This Court recently reaffirmed its holding that an appellant s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of 10 Del. C. § 147 and Delaware Supreme Court Rule 6.5 Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.6 (4) There is nothing to reflect that Lewis failure to timely file his notice of appeal in this case is attributable in any way to court personnel.7 Accordingly, this case does not fall within the exception to the general rule that mandates the 2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii) (2012). Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a) (2012). 5 Smith v. State, 2012 WL 2821889, ___ A.3d ___ (Del. July 10, 2012); Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 6 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 7 Zuppo v. State, 2011 WL 761523 (Del. Mar. 3, 2011) (holding that prison personnel are not court personnel). 3 -2- timely filing of a notice of appeal. Thus, the Court concludes that the within appeal must be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.